WANCHOO, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the award of the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam. There was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen which was referred to the tribunal for adjudication. A large number of matters were included in the reference; but in the present appeal we are concerned only with the following matters, namely : (i) revision of pay-scales; (ii) direction of the tribunal with respect to temporary workmen; (iii) direction of the tribunal with respect to special allowance to certain workmen; and (iv) direction of the tribunal with respect to retrospective operation of the award.
(2.) BESIDES these specific points a general objection was raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that as a settlement between the appellant and its workmen was in force at the time the reference was made on 15 March 1960 and had not been terminated an required by law, the entire reference was bad. We shall deal with these contentions one by one. The appellant is an electric supply company and its activity is only the distribution of electricity at Ernakulam. It does not generate the electricity which it distributes. There was a settlement between the appellant and its workmen which was arrived at on 25 November 1954. It provided that the settlement would remain in force for a period of five years from 1 October 1954. The settlement was thus to expire on 30 September 1959 but it would continue in force thereafter by virtue of S.19 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) unless it was terminated by notice in writing. The case of the appellant is that the settlement was never terminated by notice in writing and therefore it was continuing when the reference was made and so the reference was bad. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. The charter of demands was presented to the appellant by the union of its workmen on 14 October 1959. That charter of demands referred to the settlement. It also said that the union on 13 October 1959 had resolved to terminate the existing settlement and submit the charter of demands to the management. Then followed the charter of demands. It is true that in the charter of demands it has not been specifically mentioned in so many words that the settlement was being terminated thereby. There is however no form prescribed for terminating settlements under S.19(2) of the Act and all that has to be seen is whether the Provisions of S. 19 (2) are complied with and in substance a notice is given as required thereunder. In the present case, we are of opinion that the charter of demands itself shows that the union terminated the existing settlement and thereafter submitted a charter of demands to the appellant. That was in our opinion sufficient notice to the appellant in substantial compliance with the provisions of S. 19(2). The objection therefore that the reference was bad in view of the existing settlement most fail.Re : (i). - We now come to the specific points raised in appeal. So far as the revision of basic wages is concerned, the contention on behalf of the respondents before the tribunal was that they must be paid the same basic wages as prevailed in the Electricity Board. They also wanted the dearness allowance paid by the appellant to be increased. In this connexion the tribunal noticed the basic wages prevalent in Calicut where also the present appellant is distributing electricity. It seems that in Calicut there was a revision of pay-scales from 1 January 1959 and the pay-scales fixed there were slightly higher than the Ernakulam rates. The tribunal also seems to have taken into consideration the rates prevailing in Cochin municipality as well as in the Trichur municipality where the rates were slightly higher than at Ernakulam. But the tribunal pointed out that the system on which the appellant paid dearness allowance was different from the system prevailing in the Electricity Board as well as in the Cochin and Trichur municipalities and consequently the dearness allowance paid by the appellant was much higher than in the case of these three comparable concerns. It seems that the highest rates of basic wages are being paid by the Electricity Board and that is why the respondent contended that they should be paid the same basic wages as are being paid by the Electricity Board. The tribunal considered this claim of the respondents and disposed it of in these words : "The union contends that they must be paid the wage-rates prevailing under the Electricity Board and at the same time they want to retain the dearness allowance now given by the management. They want to retain the present dearness allowance and at the same time want to get the scale of pay paid to the Kerala Electricity Board employees. This is too much. If they want the Electricity Board rates they must also be prepared to accept the dearness allowance rates paid by the board."
(3.) THUS the decision of the tribunal was that the respondents were not entitled to basic wages as paid by the Electricity Board, and at the same time retain the dearness allowance an paid by the appellant which was much higher than the dearness allowance paid by the Electricity Board. It may be mentioned that the respondents' claim for increase of dearness allowance was rejected by the tribunal. Even so, the existing dearness allowance in the appellant-concern was much higher than the dearness allowance paid by the Electricity Board. This being the decision of the tribunal we should have expected that the tribunal if it retained the present dearness allowance would fix rates which may have been higher than the then existing basic wages but which would be lower than the rates prevailing in the Electricity Board. The tribunal went on to say that considering all aspects of the matter it would fix wage-rates as given in the annexure to the award.;